Abstract
Crop sequence and tillage can affect the yield of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) and other crops. Research was conducted from 2006 through 2022 to determine the response of peanut to previous crop sequences including corn (Zea mays L.) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) planted in continuous conventional tillage (e.g., disking, field cultivating, and bedding with in-row sub-soiling) or strip tillage (e.g., tilling a 45 cm section on rows spaced 91 cm apart using fluted coulters, rolling baskets, and in-row sub-soiling). In 2013, 2019, and 2022, the entire test area was planted with peanut. In 2019 and 2022, peanut was planted without or with fluopyram applied in the seed furrow at planting. Decreasing the number of years between peanut planting resulted in lower peanut yields compared with fewer years of peanut planting in the rotation sequence. Continuous conventional tillage and strip tillage resulted in similar peanut yields at one location, while the yield was lower at a second location when peanut was planted in continuous strip tillage. Fluopyram did not affect peanut yield regardless of previous crop rotation sequence, the number of years separating peanut plantings, or the tillage system. However, minor differences in the populations of plant-parasitic nematodes in soil were noted when comparing fluopyram treatment. The results from these experiments indicate that while fluopyram can reduce the populations of some plant-parasitic nematodes in soil, the magnitude of reduction does not translate into increases in peanut yield.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 7
Claim · model-written summary
More frequent peanut planting lowered peanut yield relative to rotations with fewer peanut years.
- Taxon
- peanut
Arachis hypogaeae0 - Treatment
- Decreasing the number of years between peanut plantinge0
- Outcome
- peanut yieldse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- fewer years of peanut planting in the rotation sequencee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Decreasing the number of years between peanut planting resulted in lower peanut yields compared with fewer years of peanut planting in the rotation sequence.”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional and strip tillage gave similar peanut yield at one location.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- strip tillagee0
- Outcome
- peanut yieldse0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- Continuous conventional tillagee0
- Setting
- one locatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Continuous conventional tillage and strip tillage resulted in similar peanut yields at one location”
Claim · model-written summary
Continuous strip tillage lowered peanut yield at the second location.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- continuous strip tillagee0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Setting
- a second locatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the yield was lower at a second location when peanut was planted in continuous strip tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Fluopyram did not affect peanut yield across rotation and tillage conditions.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- Fluopyrame0
- Outcome
- peanut yielde0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
- Qualifier
- regardless of previous crop rotation sequence, the number of years separating peanut plantings, or the tillage systeme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fluopyram did not affect peanut yield regardless of previous crop rotation sequence, the number of years separating peanut plantings, or the tillage system.”
Claim · model-written summary
Fluopyram produced minor differences in soil plant-parasitic nematode populations.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- fluopyram treatmente0
- Interactor
- plant-parasitic nematodese0pest
- Outcome
- populations of plant-parasitic nematodes in soile0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“minor differences in the populations of plant-parasitic nematodes in soil were noted when comparing fluopyram treatment”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Fluopyram can reduce populations of some soil plant-parasitic nematodes.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- fluopyrame0
- Interactor
- plant-parasitic nematodese0pest
- Outcome
- populations of some plant-parasitic nematodes in soile0
- Direction
- reducee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“fluopyram can reduce the populations of some plant-parasitic nematodes in soil”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
The nematode reduction with fluopyram did not translate into increased peanut yield.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- fluopyramt0
- Outcome
- increases in peanut yielde0
- Direction
- does not translatee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the magnitude of reduction does not translate into increases in peanut yield”
t0“Fluopyram”
The same questions in other papers
fluopyram · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
tillage · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ
23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 66 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
86 papers more in this group
See all 90 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.